Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

I heard that in product competition, the competition is strong when each product has a quality the competitors can't provide. Thus the consumers have to make a harder choice, while none of the products are actually flawed.

I hope the purpose behind this comic isn't to suggest that all the games mentioned are shit because they aren't all providing those qualities in a single product. All-or-nothing mentality from video game players is kinda annoying. Not having a feature or design theory another game has doesn't make something bad.

I heard that in product competition, the competition is strong when each product has a quality the competitors can't provide. Thus the consumers have to make a harder choice, while none of the products are actually flawed.

I hope the purpose behind this comic isn't to suggest that all the games mentioned are shit because they aren't all providing those qualities in a single product. All-or-nothing mentality from video game players is kinda annoying. Not having a feature or design theory another game has doesn't make something bad.

You sound way too reasonable, down-to-earth and rational. We can't have that in the gaming community.

Having played TOR and am currently play TERA, and seen lots of Guild Wars 2 videos, I've thought this exact same thing recently.

"Gee, TERA sure is fun to play, too bad the quests are boring and aren't fully voiced like TOR."
"TOR sure does have awesome storylines, companions, and quest cinematics... too bad the gameplay is boring."

Mayhaps Blizzard is looking at all the competition while they build project Titan or this hush-hush MMO people say they are making, and will implement all these systems together so that they may grasp every human on the planet in their online multiplayer grip.

hahahahaha... ohh my no. I've been following Cabal/The Secret World for quite a while and for the longest time was convinced it was just vaporware like SO many other super ambitious MMOs. From what I've seen and heard it does have a few interesting systems, but I haven't seen anything to indicate it will match what other Triple A MMOs are offering.

I heard that in product competition, the competition is strong when each product has a quality the competitors can't provide. Thus the consumers have to make a harder choice, while none of the products are actually flawed.

I hope the purpose behind this comic isn't to suggest that all the games mentioned are shit because they aren't all providing those qualities in a single product. All-or-nothing mentality from video game players is kinda annoying. Not having a feature or design theory another game has doesn't make something bad.

A game isn't allowed to have a great story and engaging gameplay?

Because that's basically what this comic boils down to, in a silly hyperbolic kind of way.

I heard that in product competition, the competition is strong when each product has a quality the competitors can't provide. Thus the consumers have to make a harder choice, while none of the products are actually flawed.

I hope the purpose behind this comic isn't to suggest that all the games mentioned are shit because they aren't all providing those qualities in a single product. All-or-nothing mentality from video game players is kinda annoying. Not having a feature or design theory another game has doesn't make something bad.

That's nice and all in theory, but doesn't dismiss the comic's point. To Gabe (and many others, including me), a good MMO should have a balance of gameplay, quest quality and storytelling. The three games he mentions are severely unbalanced in two of the three aspects. Also, you can't really play more than one MMO concurrently, and the time and money you invest in an MMO demand a high return in quality experience The reasonable reaction here is not picking the one with the best strength, but not playing any of them. And that is a problem.

None of that disproves the "competition fosters quality" concept, much the contrary. thing is, to many people, the MMO makers have yet to reach the level of quality that justifies those players' investment.

I heard that in product competition, the competition is strong when each product has a quality the competitors can't provide. Thus the consumers have to make a harder choice, while none of the products are actually flawed.

I hope the purpose behind this comic isn't to suggest that all the games mentioned are shit because they aren't all providing those qualities in a single product. All-or-nothing mentality from video game players is kinda annoying. Not having a feature or design theory another game has doesn't make something bad.

A game isn't allowed to have a great story and engaging gameplay?

Because that's basically what this comic boils down to, in a silly hyperbolic kind of way.

I think it's not that they aren't allowed to, but it seems, in this instance, they just don't.

I have a feeling this comic enlargement has to do with viewing on the new ipad "retina" display. Remember when they said its large resolution made existing pages uglier and blurier? They joked about upping the detail or resolution, and then drew themselves how they look in real life...

The problem isn't that a gaming company can't put together a game with all those qualities. The problem is that any one company that tries to do that is going to make a deformed mutant, not an MMO messiah. Each of the three game companies specializes into something for their game. Its not enough to copy the mechanics of another game, it would take a coalition of game companies and an overarching company that's good at utilizing those companies to make the Gabe-game.

The problem isn't that a gaming company can't put together a game with all those qualities. The problem is that any one company that tries to do that is going to make a deformed mutant, not an MMO messiah. Each of the three game companies specializes into something for their game. Its not enough to copy the mechanics of another game, it would take a coalition of game companies and an overarching company that's good at utilizing those companies to make the Gabe-game.

As soon as someone invents the Metaverse, this won't be a problem. I'm certain of it.

I heard that in product competition, the competition is strong when each product has a quality the competitors can't provide. Thus the consumers have to make a harder choice, while none of the products are actually flawed.

I hope the purpose behind this comic isn't to suggest that all the games mentioned are shit because they aren't all providing those qualities in a single product. All-or-nothing mentality from video game players is kinda annoying. Not having a feature or design theory another game has doesn't make something bad.

A game isn't allowed to have a great story and engaging gameplay?

Because that's basically what this comic boils down to, in a silly hyperbolic kind of way.

They're allowed to, but the the problem is expectations on what qualifies as great story or gameplay. Or hell, not even great, but even just good. It's all subjective. Usually I don't see people taking a video game for what it is. People praise TOR for doing something new with story, but because it didn't do something new for gameplay at the same time, oh man, suddenly it's a bad game. Or maybe it's actually an acceptable game and people are just getting caught in the all-or-nothing trap I mentioned above.

I heard that in product competition, the competition is strong when each product has a quality the competitors can't provide. Thus the consumers have to make a harder choice, while none of the products are actually flawed.

I hope the purpose behind this comic isn't to suggest that all the games mentioned are shit because they aren't all providing those qualities in a single product. All-or-nothing mentality from video game players is kinda annoying. Not having a feature or design theory another game has doesn't make something bad.

A game isn't allowed to have a great story and engaging gameplay?

Because that's basically what this comic boils down to, in a silly hyperbolic kind of way.

They're allowed to, but the the problem is expectations on what qualifies as great story or gameplay. Or hell, not even great, but even just good. It's all subjective. Usually I don't see people taking a video game for what it is. People praise TOR for doing something new with story, but because it didn't do something new for gameplay at the same time, oh man, suddenly it's a bad game. Or maybe it's actually an acceptable game and people are just getting caught in the all-or-nothing trap I mentioned above.

the frustration stems from how easy it is to imagine what it would be like if you had all of the qualities that are so apparent. I mean, the things we're talking about here aren't really vague or nuanced, players very clearly see what they like about each experience. it's not like they're just asking the games to be "better". the features are well delineated.

I remember thinking the exact same thing about the harvest moon series back when i was addicted to them as a kid. THIS game had really cool festivals but no cooking. THIS one lets you experiment a lot more with the crops but almost completely removes the fun house expansions, and so on. Lacking those features didn't make them bad games, but I always just wished they would make a game that kept all of the great ones.

and I just can't agree that it's somehow bratty or annoying to want multiple features you like in one game. also also I think we do have a fun game at some point on the horizon that can capture the best things about current MMO paradigms while cutting out the cruft. Isn't that what WoW basically did all those years ago?

I don't really understand why TOR isn't fun to play. It is a blatant, almost religious imitation of WoW, and that shouldn't be a problem for me. I could go hop on my old warrior and do some Tol Barad dailies and cut some unsuspecting players in half and have loads of straightforward fun at basically any time. But thinking about ANY of my TOR characters... I'm immediately bored. I've got a vague idea that TOR is so rigid and careful and structured that it doesn't really feel like gameplay as much as one great long tutorial. There's practically a green line on the ground marking where you're supposed to go at all times.

I heard that in product competition, the competition is strong when each product has a quality the competitors can't provide. Thus the consumers have to make a harder choice, while none of the products are actually flawed.

I hope the purpose behind this comic isn't to suggest that all the games mentioned are shit because they aren't all providing those qualities in a single product. All-or-nothing mentality from video game players is kinda annoying. Not having a feature or design theory another game has doesn't make something bad.

Truth, this man speaks it.

Furthermore, after playing the GW2 Beta this weekend I found the personal story very engaging and fun, and I literally could not put the game down and miss it so much now. I'd say we can safely assume I was having fun... so....yea.

Truth be told it's all subjective and left up to the opinion of the individual, while you may not like something I may think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. It is impossible to appease everyone, and a bit bratty to want everything to appease you.

But to be serious yeah, I'm still looking forward to TOR even after all I've heard. All the stuff regarding "it plays like WoW" is like... I dunno, big deal. I like how WoW plays compared to other MMOs I played, so I mean... that's a plus. But it has been a known thing about TOR for a long time. People jumping into TOR and acting surprised at the similarities seems odd to me, and other negative impressions I've seen have been disingenuous (an example is a bug that showed up following a patch, regarding some PvP rewards; people reacted like it was done on purpose).

On that note, lots of games have similar play styles. There's other hallmarks and hooks and merits to decide if a game is good or not. And I'm not saying it can't be a legit concern, but I mean, I think it's an echo chamber thing.

I heard that in product competition, the competition is strong when each product has a quality the competitors can't provide. Thus the consumers have to make a harder choice, while none of the products are actually flawed.

I hope the purpose behind this comic isn't to suggest that all the games mentioned are shit because they aren't all providing those qualities in a single product. All-or-nothing mentality from video game players is kinda annoying. Not having a feature or design theory another game has doesn't make something bad.

That's nice and all in theory, but doesn't dismiss the comic's point. To Gabe (and many others, including me), a good MMO should have a balance of gameplay, quest quality and storytelling. The three games he mentions are severely unbalanced in two of the three aspects.

But is this actual fact or quality assessment? Are the settings of Tera and Guild Wars constructed in ways where the players aren't meant to be the heroes, but constructed well in that regard? I know these are really weird questions to ask, but if you look at something like the first Half-Life, Gordon Freeman wasn't THE guy everyone was like, "OH SHIT, WE'RE SAVED!" over. You were playing the game as a guy who was stuck in a situation way over his head, just being thrust along. You happen to be an important component, but there's little to no fame involved. So an MMO setting can be constructed that way. An easier way to ask this is, is there a Lord British equivalent in those games?

Totally exposing my nerd life here, but I kinda run into this shit a lot when I RP in WoW. Everyone is trying to be some grand hero in the world, and take the actual content / achievements their character has been through and apply it as hard fact. But everyone is the Veteran of the Wrath Gate who the dragon queen calls to. Everyone is the guy who fought alongside John J. Keesham. You've gotta be willing to step aside and decide, "Maybe I'm not that guy" when interacting with others. That's the problem with narrative in MMOs that people always bring up. If Guild Wars and Tera made you feel like THE guy, it'd just loop back around to this issue. There's no winning. The game can falsely make you feel like the guy, or you can be a small part of the big machine.

Also, you can't really play more than one MMO concurrently, and the time and money you invest in an MMO demand a high return in quality experience The reasonable reaction here is not picking the one with the best strength, but not playing any of them. And that is a problem.

None of that disproves the "competition fosters quality" concept, much the contrary. thing is, to many people, the MMO makers have yet to reach the level of quality that justifies those players' investment.

Until recently I was playing three MMOs concurrently, and currently am playing two. For me, it's just like any other genre out there. The issue is the money investment, yes. But if you have the money to burn and aren't crippling yourself, then it's not a problem. It's okay to play multiple MMOs at once, especially now that many of them are adopting the freemium model. The way I see the argument, it's like saying "you can't really play more than one FPS concurrently," or RPG, or RTS, etc. But that's just me, I don't mind paying money for services. Paying money for things is an entirely separate issue I think. Though if you want to keep it tightly bound to this topic, "Why do I have to pay for Call of Duty and Halo and Gears of War? Why can't they make a game that takes all the best aspects from those and make one game?"

They tried that over the last couple of decades. Duke Nukem Forever. And look how that turned out.

Edit - Just to be clear on that DNF dig, I'm not talking about the final product, I'm talking about the development cycle and how much time and money was burned on trying to make the game keep up with newly developed features in video games. If you try to do that to an MMO's development, you're fucking yourself massively.

ToR was a great single player experience. Very engaging story, great companions, decent classes and combat if a bit skill bloated. Was not much of an MMO or something I could put a long term 15$ sub into though.

I never bothered with TERA because of the hassle involved in finding out what I already know, lol Korean grind WoW clone, but I hear only good things about the depth of it's combat and the fact that it has stuff like politics in the endgame.

GW2 is something I've been waiting 3 years to play, and having been in the BWE I feel mostly vindicated in my faith in ArenaNet to deliver on what they promised. It's not a Jesus MMO revolution or even a radical departure from what themepark MMOs are, but it does a lot of things right in PvE feeling more organic and PvP having more incentive and strategy and skill involved. It has room for improvement, but even as it is, it's a great game.

Putting their highlights together would make a great game, probably the pinnacle of greatness that can be achieved by any themepark MMO or MMO in general, but it would require more man hours, sheer force of will, money and patience, not to mention risk, then currently exists in the game industry or may ever exist. SWTOR's full VA alone would make it untenable in the long term simply because of the time and money needed to fully VA new content updates. And the bar would always get higher with every new release, as it did for WoW.

ToR was a great single player experience. Very engaging story, great companions, decent classes and combat if a bit skill bloated. Was not much of an MMO or something I could put a long term 15$ sub into though.

That's the way I view TOR (again, as an outsider). I can enjoy my singleplayer 'be the hero' thing, and then there's MMO components attached as the secondary aspect of the game. It makes me think of the dev theory that Extra Credits brought up a month or two ago about how RPG elements to games work best as the secondary, supporting component. Like the Castlevania games as of late, and all that. The aspects that make an MMO what it is may work best if they're a supporting feature. Big groups for raids, all that. Unfortunately, one of the aspects if very much business driven, hooking people with grinding and addictiveness. So maybe that doesn't work out.